User:OttselSpy25/Commercial fiction sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 36: Line 36:
* [[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]] and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the [[Bootstrap paradox]]. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
* [[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]] and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the [[Bootstrap paradox]]. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
* [[Famine Appeal]] - I'm leaning towards non-valid for things like this, but I would have to hear from my peers.
* [[Famine Appeal]] - I'm leaning towards non-valid for things like this, but I would have to hear from my peers.
* [[Christmas Gift Guide: LEGO set]] - This is lost media now, but I recall at the time thinking it shouldn't be valid. Same for the two other Christmas Gift Guides.
* [[Friend from the Future (TV story)|Friend from the Future]] - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, but I think it would need a stand-alone debate.
* [[Friend from the Future (TV story)|Friend from the Future]] - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, but I think it would need a stand-alone debate.
* [[Meet the Thirteenth Doctor (TV story)|Meet the Thirteenth Doctor]] - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for ''Rule 4 By Proxy''.
* [[Meet the Thirteenth Doctor (TV story)|Meet the Thirteenth Doctor]] - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for ''Rule 4 By Proxy''.
Line 42: Line 41:


== Advertisements which do not qualify ==
== Advertisements which do not qualify ==
* [[Christmas Gift Guide: LEGO set]] - This is lost media now, but I recall at the time thinking it shouldn't be valid. Same for the two other Christmas Gift Guides.
* [[Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer)]] - this is an important case, as this is essentially a regular trailer showing clips from the next episode, but with some new linking segments. This alone does not make it qualify for rule 1, let alone rule 4.
* [[Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer)]] - this is an important case, as this is essentially a regular trailer showing clips from the next episode, but with some new linking segments. This alone does not make it qualify for rule 1, let alone rule 4.
* [[Death of the Doctor (trailer)]] - Also the same situation
* [[Death of the Doctor (trailer)]] - Also the same situation

Revision as of 15:57, 18 March 2023

This is going to be a curated list of potential commercials/advertisements/idents that should be validated in the future, given specific circumstances.

Essentially, advertisements being disqualified for "not being narratives" and thus not fitting Rule 1 should be retired. Thusly, all "advertisements" which are more than just compilations of clips and images should be reconsidered under rule 4: if they are intended to take place in the Doctor Who Universe.

Stories where I'm certain

TV stories

  • 2009 BBC Christmas idents - Famous "TARDIS with Reindeer" idents. Calling these commercials is a little iffy in the first place, as I don't think idents are advertisements. Nevertheless, these are TV stories with a narrative going on.
  • A return to Skaro for the First Doctor... - This is a classic example of something that clearly isn't a trailer, but was called one once and was thus invalidated immediately.
  • Step Into the 80's! / On Through the 80's!
  • Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars - This one could be debated, but the story being narrated by Peter Capaldi and ending on the reveal of the Twelfth Doctor makes it more a Doctor Who story than anything else
  • CBBC idents - This can hopefully be fleshed out with more info? But it sounds like it might qualify
  • Any of the Collection trailers... Which are mostly already counted as valid due to some loophole.

Webcasts

Short stories

  • Can I Help You? (short story) - Short story printed on a t-shirt. It could be argued that the story "is a commercial item" since it's printed on a t-shirt. I think stories printed on paper and sold in books are also commercial items.
  • The Cult of Skaro (short story)
  • Dalek Wars - this one just doesn't make any god damn sense in my opinion. When a 1960s story is used to sell candy cigarettes, we give it a featuring page! But when a 2000s story is used to sell baseball cards? No. >:( Even if the proposition doesn't pass, this being invalid makes no sense with our rules.

Comic stories

Audio stories

Stories I'm less certain about

  • The Trip of a Lifetime and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the Bootstrap paradox. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
  • Famine Appeal - I'm leaning towards non-valid for things like this, but I would have to hear from my peers.
  • Friend from the Future - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, but I think it would need a stand-alone debate.
  • Meet the Thirteenth Doctor - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for Rule 4 By Proxy.
  • Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer) - Another great example here where there's no real proof that it's set inside the DWU. But it's entirely possible I'm wrong, like if the novelisation of Day of the Doctor name drops these events, I'd say it's valid. But it is much more a "promotional short" than a trailer.

Advertisements which do not qualify